the PRODOS blog

Have a hug. Read Atlas Shrugged.

Manzi Manzi, Global Warming Pansy!

[photopress:headlights.jpg,full,pp_image]
Seeing the light?

A few months ago in March, Jim Manzi wrote in Conservative publication, National Review:

The available evidence indicates that it is probable (though not strictly scientifically proven) that human activities have increased global temperatures to date and will likely continue to do so.

But in spite of all the table-pounding, nobody can reliably quantify the size of these future impacts, or even bound them sufficiently to guide action.

The total impact of global temperatures over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe.

Long-term climate prediction is in its infancy, and improved forecast reliability is crucial to enable useful guidance for policymakers. Better science could give us what is most need in this debate:

more light and less heat.

But now it looks like Jim Manzi has now seen the light!

Actually he’s seen two lights. Headlights.
Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com quotes Manzi writing:

It is no longer possible, scientifically or politically, to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures …

We can’t deny it scientifically OR POLITICALLY??!!

How do these two different standards – scientific and political – coexist in the same sentence? Let’s make this into two sentences to see what Jim Manzi is actually saying.

  1. It is no longer possible, scientifically, to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures.
  2. It is no longer possible, politically, to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures.

It’s this second sentence that’s most interesting.

What Jim Manzi is saying is that going against the great political momentum of Global Warming alarmist politicians and bureaucrats is no longer possible.

The political energy, enthusiasm, excitement of our power lusters has reached some sort of unstoppable level! Some untouchable temperature!

Now, if it’s true doesn’t this strike you as a tad bit anti-democratic perhaps?

Okay, so here is National Review’s and Jim Manzi’s big chance to fight back (Yeah!) and remind readers that we won’t put up with this! (Yeah!)

Science should stick to facts!

And politicians should just stick it!

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Don’t hold your breath. Go ahead now, release some CO2! Because Jim Mansy has other plans. Big plans for you and me!

Steve Milloy writes:

What should conservatives do about global warming?

Jim Manzi suggests in his June 25 National Review cover story (“Game Plan”) that conservatives embrace junk science and “manage” global climate change so that they can “peel off” 1 percent of the votes from the “opposing coalition” in some future presidential election.

What a cowardly, cynical, unethical position!

His “Game Plan” is to “play the game”!

What a shyster! What a conman!

And Jim Manzi is trying to sell it to us by appealing to what he must think is our sense of fatalism and impotence!

We should all give up, right? What’s the point, right? All is lost, right?

Steve Milloy rounds it up perfectly:

But cleverness will not likely protect our freedoms and wallets from the Greens, Europeans, global bureaucracy, rent-seeking businesses and Congress.

These groups need to be sternly faced-down with the scientific and economic realities of global warming.

Right now, conservatives are leading the charge in favor of sound science, and against climate clamoring and profiteering. That should continue to be our “game plan.”

That is the principled stand.

Good one Steve! Keep up the great work, mate!

Report This Post

4 Comments

  1. I’m not sure exactly how to respond.

    You assert a contradiction between an article I wrote several months ago and the current article.

    You say that:

    “A few months ago in March, Jim Manzi wrote in Conservative publication, National Review:

    The available evidence indicates that it is probable (though not strictly scientifically proven) that human activities have increased global temperatures to date and will likely continue to do so.

    But in spite of all the table-pounding, nobody can reliably quantify the size of these future impacts, or even bound them sufficiently to guide action.

    The total impact of global temperatures over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe.”

    You then say this is different than what I say in the current article. Here are exact relevant quotes from the current article:

    “It is no longer scientifically or politically tenable to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures, though quantifying the magnitude of the impact remains an important point of contention.

    Global warming is a real risk, but its impact over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe. ”

    Where is the contradiction exactly?

    Among other things you call me a pansy, cowardly, cynical, a shyster and a conman. It’s funny how the biggest wussies usually hide behind online postings.

    Maybe you could have gotten your facts straight and bothered to address the points of the article.

    Jim Manzi

    Report This Comment

  2. Good morning Jim Manzi,

    Thanks for your comments.

    I haven’t had a chance these last couple of days to respond in detail as I’m visiting the USA with my wife at present and we’ve been busy catching up with people before we head back to Australia.

    I’ll address your reply in the next day or two.

    Best Wishes.

    Report This Comment

  3. Sorry Jim. I`m here to attack from the other side. Prodos, i suggest you take a look at what jim is really saying…strategically it may be good for you.

    My response is at the link by my name…i dont entirely agree with Jim!

    Report This Comment

  4. A copy of Jim Manzi’s article, Game Plan, is currently available HERE.

    Report This Comment

Leave a Reply

© 2015 the PRODOS blog

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog